From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>, rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.ma>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields, validate user inputs
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 19:25:53 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <321013411.10852.1530573953298.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyQwfXxMnx2WQadfZKAnEfkoT+zomrRRToZz8-uWzUccQ@mail.gmail.com>
----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 4:17 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>>
>> Are there any kind of guarantees that a __u64 update on a 32-bit architecture
>> won't be torn into something daft like byte-per-byte stores when performed
>> from C code ?
>
> Guarantees? No. Not that there are any guarantees that the same won't
> happen for a plain 32-bit value either.
>
> Will compilers generate that kind of code? I guess some crazy compiler
> could simply be really bad at handling 64-bit values, and just happen
> to handle 32-bit values better. So in that sense a 64-bit entity is
> certainly a bit riskier. But that would be a really bad compiler, I
> have to say.
Given that the only C code updating that field is rseq_prepare_unload()
(the rest is only ever updated from assembly), we could perhaps mandate
that user-space always update it from assembly, and therefore implement
rseq_prepare_unload as an inline asm which clears rseq->rseq_cs.
Does it sound better than the LINUX_FIELD_u32_u64 macro ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>, rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields, validate user inputs
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 19:25:53 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <321013411.10852.1530573953298.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyQwfXxMnx2WQadfZKAnEfkoT+zomrRRToZz8-uWzUccQ@mail.gmail.com>
----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 4:17 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>>
>> Are there any kind of guarantees that a __u64 update on a 32-bit architecture
>> won't be torn into something daft like byte-per-byte stores when performed
>> from C code ?
>
> Guarantees? No. Not that there are any guarantees that the same won't
> happen for a plain 32-bit value either.
>
> Will compilers generate that kind of code? I guess some crazy compiler
> could simply be really bad at handling 64-bit values, and just happen
> to handle 32-bit values better. So in that sense a 64-bit entity is
> certainly a bit riskier. But that would be a really bad compiler, I
> have to say.
Given that the only C code updating that field is rseq_prepare_unload()
(the rest is only ever updated from assembly), we could perhaps mandate
that user-space always update it from assembly, and therefore implement
rseq_prepare_unload as an inline asm which clears rseq->rseq_cs.
Does it sound better than the LINUX_FIELD_u32_u64 macro ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-02 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-02 22:31 [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields, validate user inputs Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 22:31 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 22:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 22:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:00 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:00 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:16 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:16 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2018-07-02 23:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-02 23:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 1:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 1:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:01 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:01 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 2:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 2:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 2:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 2:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 2:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 8:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 8:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 8:29 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 8:29 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 8:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 8:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 8:55 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 8:55 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 9:17 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 9:17 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 16:40 ` Andi Kleen
2018-07-03 16:40 ` Andi Kleen
2018-07-03 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 17:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 17:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:38 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:38 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:58 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:58 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:41 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:41 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 19:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 19:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 17:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 18:09 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:09 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 0:19 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-07-03 0:19 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-07-03 0:23 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 0:23 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 0:35 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-07-03 0:35 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-07-03 1:17 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 1:17 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=321013411.10852.1530573953298.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=bmaurer@fb.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=davejwatson@fb.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.